Lockheed Corp. v. Spink

Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882 (1996), is a US labor law case, concerning occupational pensions.[1]

Lockheed Corp. v. Spink
Argued April 22, 1996
Decided June 10, 1996
Full case nameLockheed Corp., et al. v. Spink
Docket no.95-809
Citations517 U.S. 882 (more)
116 S. Ct. 1783; 135 L. Ed. 2d 153; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 3717
Case history
PriorSpink v. Lockheed Corp., 60 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1995); cert. granted, 516 U.S. 1087 (1996).
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg; Souter and Breyer (all but Part III-B)
Concur/dissentBreyer, joined by Souter
Laws applied
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(D)

Facts

Mr Spink was denied full benefits from Lockheed Corporation after being rehired in 1988. He claimed that an amendment of the plan, to exclude people over 61, violated § 406(a)(1)(D) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),[2] which prohibits a fiduciary from causing a plan to engage in a transaction that transfers plan assets to, or involves the use of plan assets for the benefit of, a party in interest.

Judgment

Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, ruled that employers could amend plans. They were not bound by fiduciary duties while acting as sponsors.

Justices Breyer and Souter dissented in part, preferring to withhold expression of any view on the proposition that "the payment of benefits pursuant to an amended plan, regardless of what the plan requires of the employee in return for those benefits, does not constitute a prohibited transaction."

gollark: It also seems to function as a plausibly deniable way to ban end to end encryption (it never mentions it explicitly but does have a mechanism to force technology companies to make their service amenable to centralised monitoring).
gollark: The UK government is also working on the incredibly ææææ "online safety bill", which obliges online things to ban "harmful content" (not illegal, "harmful").
gollark: I do know about this.
gollark: It doesn't help that various governments and such also seem to not want anonymous online communications.
gollark: Maybe people will get sufficiently annoyed by this sort of practice to get it to stop at some point, or maybe we're doomed to a dystopia of social acceptability.

See also

References
  1. Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882 (1996).
  2. 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(D).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.